From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33285)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <jsnow@redhat.com>) id 1aLZhp-00070v-0h
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:04:33 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <jsnow@redhat.com>) id 1aLZho-0000uR-6G
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:04:32 -0500
References: <1453179117-17909-1-git-send-email-jsnow@redhat.com>
	<1453179117-17909-2-git-send-email-jsnow@redhat.com>
	<569E2283.9070904@redhat.com>
From: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <569E6C99.6020308@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:04:25 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <569E2283.9070904@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/5] ide: Prohibit RESET on IDE drives
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, qemu-block@nongnu.org
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com



On 01/19/2016 06:48 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 19/01/2016 05:51, John Snow wrote:
>> +    /* Only RESET is allowed to an ATAPI device while BSY and/or DRQ are set. */
>> +    if (s->status & (BUSY_STAT|DRQ_STAT)) {
>> +        if (!(val == WIN_DEVICE_RESET) && (s->drive_kind == IDE_CD)) {
> 
> I was going to complain about Pascal-ish parentheses, but actually I
> think there is a bug here; the expression just looks weird.
> 
> Did you mean
> 
> 	if (!(val == WIN_DEVICE_RESET && s->drive_kind == IDE_CD))
> 
> or equivalently applying de Morgan's law:
> 
> 	if (s->drive_kind != IDE_CD || val != WIN_DEVICE_RESET)
> 
> ?
> 
> Paolo
> 
>> +            return;
> 

ugh, yes, I typo'd. Thank you.

If you're still up, which do you find more readable?
The (!(A && B)) form or the (!A || !B) form?